WAZIR SINGH, UP-SARPANCH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that because of encroachment on the panchayat land measuring six marlas comprised in Khasra No. 22/1, the respondent, vide his order dated 2.1.98, in exercise of his powers under section 51(3)(c)(e) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, removed the appellant from the office of Panch, (Up-Sarpanch). Aggrieved by the said removal order, this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) OPENING his arguments learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant cannot be held liable or responsible for any lapse on the part of his father. He further argued that in the present case the present appellant does not fall under any of the clauses of section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. He continued to argue that the appellant lives separately from his father, has the separate Ration Card and house No. etc.; that even otherwise the powers and functions of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade cannot be expected to be exercised by the respondent while determining the nature of possession of a person on the Gram Panchayat land. Concluding his arguments he prayed for acceptance of this appeal.

(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel as length and gone through the record. The impugned order does not disclose the detail of evidence, treated by the respondent to be sufficient to pass the impugned order. Similarly the impugned order does not lead to an inference as to whether the appellant has been placed under suspension because of his own encroachment or because of encroachment of his father or because of encroachment of the two. Thus, viewed from any angle the impugned order cannot be said to be a speaking order. Before taking the extreme step to remove the appellant from the office of Panch, the respondent was required to pass detailed and self-speaking order.